Israel's War Unwinnable
All Posts post a reply | post a new topic

AuthorTopic: Israel's War Unwinnable
topic by
John Calvin
5/28/2002 (19:21)
 reply top
Israel's unwinnable war



May 9, 2002

You may have noticed that the controversial book by Gen. Paul Aussaresses, the French torturer, is now available in English under the title, 'The Battle of the Casbah.' Aussaresses' view is that with a little more torture, Algeria would still be French.

Algeria is in the news today because of the Palestinians. Israel apparently believes that by replicating French practices, it can achieve what the French failed to achieve in Algeria.

As France failed, so will Israel. Israel's war will continue until its occupation of Palestinian land ends. It is an ugly war, as Tuesday's bombing near Tel Aviv reminded again, just as the Algerian war was ugly. It will not end until the occupier departs.

Think of Jenin as the Casbah or Ramallah as Algiers. Reduce them to rubble, kill or torture prisoners (B'Tselem, the Israeli human rights group, provides information on Israeli torture), encourage settlers to move onto confiscated land, and you find in Palestine a situation similar to Algeria.

Politically, Palestinians seek independence from the colonial power, just as Algerians did. Though clear majorities of Israelis, like the French, do not want conflict, the power elite, closely tied to the colonists, is determined to keep the occupied land at all costs.

You may have noticed that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon took issue with President Bush's call for a Palestinian state Tuesday. Sharon opposes a Palestinian state, a position that condemns Israel to permanent war.

Sharon's position also subjects America, as Israel's blind ally, to dangers it doesn't deserve.

France, prior to 1962, regarded Algeria as France, not a colony. The same justification is used by Israeli settlers: The occupied land is theirs. They may come from Russia, America or Ethiopia, but the land belongs to them, not the indigenous people.

The worldwide decolonialization movement that began after World War II did not include Algeria. Sensing their fate, Algerians formed an independence movement, the FLN, which attacked settlers. At Setif, in May, 1945, the French army retaliated massively, killing between 6,000 people and 20,000 people, accounts differ.

The war was on. The dead were terrorists, said France. Just villagers, said the Algerians. Sound familiar?

The Europeans, as any reader of Lawrence of Arabia will know, betrayed the Arabs after World War I by taking over the lands of the defeated Ottoman Empire instead of giving them independence. France took Lebanon and Syria; Britain took Iraq, Jordan and Palestine.

Colonialism died in World War II, and soon all Arabs except Palestinians and Algerians would be independent.

What made Palestine and Algeria different was the presence of large minorities of European settlers.

Algeria, conquered in 1830, became part of France proper, unlike neighboring Tunisia and Morocco, which were colonies. Millions of settlers, called colons, arrived from France over many decades, taking the land from Algerians as American settlers took it from native Americans.

In Palestine, Britain's Balfour Declaration of 1917 stated that: 'His Majesty's government views with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine' (my italics).

The first British census in Palestine, in 1922, showed a population of 757,182 – 78 percent Muslim, 11 percent Jewish, 9.6 percent Christian.

The end of World War II brought full-scale war in both Palestine and Algeria. There had been guerrilla war for years, but real war broke out in the late 1940s. In Palestine, it led to the division of land between Israel and Jordan. In Algeria, war would claim 250,000 lives before the peace of 1962.

Charles de Gaulle ended the Algerian war. Recognizing that the war was unwinnable, that it was turning France into an occupier, brutalizer, torturer and pariah among nations, de Gaulle agreed to Algerian independence.

The colons, led by four generals, declared war on de Gaulle, tried to kill him and were on the verge of invading France from Algeria. De Gaulle turned to the French people, who supported him in a referendum and approved Algerian independence. The colons came home. The generals went to jail.

Where is Israel's de Gaulle?

In Sharon, Israel has the anti-de Gaulle, The issue is not Israel itself, which has been accepted by the Arabs. The issue is the land that is not Israel. Israel's great trauma today is that while its people would give back the occupied land in exchange for peace, Sharon wants more land and more settlers.

Israel has fallen into the same trap as France's Fourth Republic. Sharon believes that by repeating in Jenin and Ramallah what the Fourth Republic did in Setif and the Casbah, Israel wins. He believes that by killing and torturing the Palestinians, reducing their civilization to rubble, Israel wins.

He is deluded. Israel is a sad and isolated land today, and many Jews are paying the price.

Americans are paying, too. Unfortunately, we have a president who, up to now, has shown more interest in the Jewish vote than in respect for justice and American traditions. It is tragedy.


© Copyright 2002 Union-Tribune Publishing Co.
reply by
John Calvin
5/28/2002 (19:23)
 reply top
Pro-Israeli Lobby a Force to Be Reckoned With
Tuesday, May 28, 2002

By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos

Fox News (see MER WORLD)


WASHINGTON — Strong condemnation among congressional members most often follows the homicide bombings rocking Israeli towns, with lawmakers throwing support behind Israel's continued operation to rid Palestinian territories of terrorists.

After an explosion in the town of Rishon Letzion on Thursday killed two people and the bomber, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, said, 'The innocent Israelis murdered today underscore the need to stand with Israel as they eliminate the terrorist networks.'

DeLay's strong response was one of many expressions of support coming from congressional members, who repeatedly remind voters of the strong U.S.-Israel alliance dating back to Israel's 1948 foundation.

But widespread congressional support is rooted in more than just a long-term relationship. It is traced to the power of the collective Jewish or pro-Israeli lobby, a well-organized, well-funded, extremely active, and extraordinarily connected group, according to political analysts.

'They are very savvy and sophisticated,' said Richard Semiatin, a political science professor at American University. 'They are extremely knowledgeable and some of the best lobbyists in the country when they get into congressional offices.'

Indeed, the latest crisis in the Middle East, which has been punctuated by 20 months of Palestinian uprisings that resulted in dozens of homicide bombings and the subsequent ongoing occupation of disputed Palestinian territory, has only energized this Washington lobby. The group has been hosting near-daily organizational conferences, press events, op-eds, advertising campaigns, and rallies — all demanding that Arafat get control of his militant supporters and reform his corrupt Parliament.

'It's a little like the special forces teams who go in to fight in Afghanistan. They're on the ground, calling in bombers. The planes overhead are the pro-Israeli supporters across the country,' who donate money to campaigns and send letters to Washington, said former Clinton political adviser Dick Morris. 'It's a very effective model and basically unequaled in the Congress.'

'The key to AIPAC's success is support for the only Western democracy in the Middle East,' said Josh Block, spokesman for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which boasts over 65,000 Jewish and non-Jewish members. 'The members support and believe that Israel is our ally on the frontline against terrorism in the Middle East. When you are lobbying on an issue that is so clearly the right thing to do, your effectiveness is high.'

Granted, other groups, including the National Rifle Association, the Cuban American National Foundation and the American Trial Lawyers Association, all command large audiences and ready support in the aggressive environment of Washington.

But AIPAC, along with the American Jewish Committee, the American Defense League, the United Jewish Communities, the National Jewish Democratic Council, and the Republican Jewish Coalition, all of whom conduct their own grassroots campaigns, have surpassed the partisan and political bickering that often marks policy on guns, Cuba and tort law.

Just a sample of their influence: Earlier this month, pro-Israeli resolutions, which included $200 million for Israeli defense activities, passed the House 352-21 and the Senate 94-2.

During one week last month, Israeli groups were able to rally an estimated 100,000 people to Capitol Hill, as well as several political heavyweights, including Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, New York Gov. George Pataki and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

A week later, congressional leaders like DeLay and Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., delivered rousing speeches to AIPAC's annual conference, the most powerful lobbying force for the Jewish-American community. DeLay's speech was followed by instructions to blanket Capitol Hill with lobbying teams.

'These groups have taken advantage of the political system to organize themselves to petition the government and they have a reputation of success not only because of their influence but because our presidents have seen their cause in the public interest,' said John Samples, a political analyst with the Cato Institute. 'It gives you the notion that there is a broad coalition of people who see it as part of the national interest to support Israel very strongly.'

'They do have a tremendous amount of clout, but I think it starts with the fact that there is an enormous amount of support for their point of view in Washington,' said political analyst Rich Galen, who edits Mullings.com. 'They are feeding into a willing audience.'

But not everyone is buying into the hype.

'It is truly disturbing to see American elected officials falling over themselves in an unseemly attempt to 'pledge allegiance' to a foreign government and its domestic lobby,' complained the Council on American-Islamic Relations in a recent statement.

'There are Jewish people who are opposed to Israeli policies, but they don't get a hearing in the Congress. The pro-Israel lobby gets all the attention,' said Faiz Rehmanen, communications director for the American Muslim Council in Washington.

'As an American, I see it as a problem. [Members of Congress] aren't addressing our interests, they are addressing the interests of a critical lobby,' he added.

Indeed, the number of Jews in the United States Congress well surpasses the population as a whole. Seven percent of members are Jewish, while the Jewish-American population totals 2.2 percent, about 6 million people in a nation of 280 million.

But Jewish-Americans accounted for 4 percent of total voter turnout in the 2000 elections, totaled close to 3 percent of swing voters in several key states and their fund-raising ability is nearly unmatched, say experts.

'It's a big fund-raising community filled with people who are willing to give large sums of money to political parties and candidates,' said Michael Barone, author of The New Americans. 'It's money, but it is also skill, it's the strength of their arguments.'

In 2001, AIPAC spent $1.1 million in lobbying efforts on Capitol Hill, which Block said is typical. None of that money went directly to political campaigns. Neither does AIPAC endorse candidates.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, pro-Israeli donors, including PACs and individuals, gave $28.6 million to Democrats and $12.7 million to Republicans. About $17.5 million came from PACs and $24 million from individuals.

By comparison, Arab-American and Muslim PAC contributions totaled $296,830 since 1990, with Democrats receiving $206,908 of that money.

'The Jewish lobby is extremely influential in Washington,' said Steven Weiss, a spokesman for the Center for Responsive Politics. 'If you are a candidate and you get the pro-Israel label from AIPAC, the money will start coming in from contributors all over the country.'

'When you have a core constituency that is so passionate about what they believe in, they are likely to open their pocketbooks,' surmised Matt Brooks, executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition.

reply by
TheAZCowBoy
5/28/2002 (23:03)
 reply top
Tom DeLay--like resident Klansman Dick Armey is a racist punk.

And like the KKK great dragon that he is--he see's Jewish excesses as a way of life in the Middle East.

But, don't dispair because the KKK has become 'almost' extinct and the bastard AIPAC harlots of the US Congress begin to age and disappear from inside the beltway--no, not fast enough--but nevertheles they begin to disappear.

TheAZCowBoy,
reply by
tim ahern
6/27/2002 (10:55)
 reply top
The France-Algiers analogy for Israel put forward by John Calvin has one major shortcoming - there is no comparator for France in the equation. DeGalle allowed the Algierian colonists to resettle in France as I understand it, but Israel doesn't possess a Jewish/Israeli mother country outside its borders, and the descendants of its original settlers who were mostly of Russian and Polish descent aren't about to be taken back by Poland and Russia - the very idea is absurd. Most Jews who migrated from other parts of the world would face similar dilemmas. The only exception may be those who moved from the US, UK, and a handfull of other nations with policies that could accomodate such a possibility.

Probably a better analogy would be to compare Israel to nations founded by settlers who broke their formal ties and allegiances to their previous homelands when they settled other lands. I suspect these types of settlers are in it for the long haul, as they have no readily available options for reabsorption.